Prohibiting The Vehicle Kill Switch & Your Vehicle Data to Foreign Entities: How Texas Will Stop It
Prohibiting The Vehicle Kill Switch & Your Vehicle Data to Foreign Entities: How Texas Will Stop It
Washington has passed a law authorizing technology that can remotely disable your car. At the same time, automakers are streaming continuous data about you — your location, your behavior, your biometrics — to third parties and to foreign nations, without your knowledge or consent. This legislation stops both threats cold. Here is what the law says, what Texas has tried to do, and the comprehensive protection I am proposing for every driver in HD-109 and across Texas.
The Federal Law Explained
What Congress actually passed — and what it authorizes
In November 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), P.L. 117-58. Buried inside this 2,700-page law is Section 24220 — a provision that directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop and mandate a federal safety standard requiring every new passenger vehicle sold in America to contain advanced impaired driving prevention technology. That technology is what critics, correctly, call a “kill switch.”[IIJA §24220, 2021]
IIJA § 24220 directs NHTSA to promulgate a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requiring technology that can: (A) passively monitor a driver’s performance to detect impairment AND prevent or limit vehicle operation; (B) passively detect a blood alcohol concentration at or above 0.08 g/dL AND prevent or limit vehicle operation; or (C) a combination of both. The phrase “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation” is the kill switch function.[IIJA §24220(b)]
Congress originally directed NHTSA to issue a final rule within three years of enactment — by November 15, 2024. NHTSA missed that deadline.[NHTSA Report to Congress, Feb. 2026] NHTSA’s own engineers confirmed in their February 2026 Report to Congress that no commercially available technology currently meets the statutory standard for accuracy, reliability, or safety — but the legal mandate has not been rescinded.[NHTSA, Feb. 2026]
Status of Federal Repeal Efforts
Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced an amendment to the federal appropriations bill that would have defunded the kill switch mandate entirely. On January 22, 2026, the House of Representatives voted 164–268 to reject that amendment.[House Vote Record, Jan. 22, 2026] Section 24220 of the IIJA remains in full force. Representative Michael McCaul of Texas sponsored H.R. 6563, the No Kill Switches in Cars Act, to repeal Section 24220 outright, but as of June 2026 that repeal has not become law.[McCaul Press Release, 2024]
The kill switch mandate is permanent federal law unless Congress acts to repeal it. The final rule has not been issued yet — but it is coming. The window for Texas to act pre-emptively, before the federal standard is finalized, is open right now and we must use it.
How the Technology Works
What this device actually does inside your vehicle — and why it matters
The technology mandated by IIJA § 24220 is specifically defined as passive — meaning it operates continuously, without the driver turning it on, and without the driver being able to turn it off. It is always watching.[IIJA §24220(b)]
Passive monitoring means the system watches you every time you drive: your eye movement, reaction time, steering patterns, and potentially your biometric data. If the system’s algorithm decides you are impaired, it prevents or limits your vehicle from operating — without a police stop, without a court order, without due process, and without you having any say in the matter.[IIJA §24220(b); NHTSA, Feb. 2026]
The False Positive Problem
Even if the technology achieves a 99.9% accuracy rate — which no current system can — the scale of American driving means millions to tens of millions of instances each year where a perfectly sober driver would be wrongly blocked from operating their vehicle.[NHTSA Report to Congress, Feb. 2026] Think about what that means for a Cedar Hill family trying to get to work at 6 AM, a Lancaster parent rushing a child to the ER, or a Glenn Heights business owner whose commercial vehicle is frozen by an algorithm that cannot be appealed in real time.
The Privacy Problem
The monitoring technology records continuous data about how you drive, when you drive, where you drive, and how your body responds while driving. The 2018 Supreme Court decision in Carpenter v. United States established that continuous tracking of a person’s movements and activities requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The same constitutional principle applies here.[Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018)]
The Cost Problem
Every new vehicle sold in America would be required to contain this technology once NHTSA finalizes its rule. Industry estimates place the hardware cost at $500 to $2,000 per vehicle.[House Vote Analysis, Jan. 2026] For the working and middle-class communities of HD-109, this is a direct tax on mobility imposed by federal mandate.
“The Republican Party of Texas demands that our state and federal lawmakers prohibit a government-mandated kill switch or other device designed to cease a vehicle’s operation remotely.”Republican Party of Texas, Official Resolution, 2025
Texas Legislative History
Three bills tried and failed — why it matters for the 90th Legislature
Texas has not been silent on this issue. Three separate bills were filed in the 89th Legislature (2025 Regular Session) to prohibit remote vehicle disabling technology. All three died without a committee vote.[TX HB 2547; TX SB 381; TX HB 1074, 89th Leg.] The RPT made this a formal Legislative Priority #8 under “Ending Federal Overreach” and passed a formal resolution demanding action.[RPT Resolution on Kill Switches, 2025]
| Bill | Session | Author | Approach | Committee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HB 1031 | 88th (2023) | Rep. Slaton | Prohibit manufacture/sale; nullify federal requirement | Transportation | Died in committee |
| SB 916 | 88th (2023) | Sen. Hall | Prohibit undeactivatable monitoring tech; license enforcement | Business & Commerce | Died in committee |
| HB 2547 | 89th (2025) | Rep. Cain | Prohibit manufacture/distribute/sell vehicles with RVDT; dealer/manufacturer license revocation | State Affairs | Died — no vote |
| SB 381 | 89th (2025) | Sen. Middleton | Companion to HB 2547 | Transportation | Died — no vote |
| HB 1074 | 89th (2025) | Rep. Schatzline | Right to Drive Act — ban RVDT vehicle registration | Never assigned | Died — no vote |
Legal Analysis & Preemption
Can Texas legally prohibit this? Here is the honest answer — and why acting now is critical
The primary legal concern with a Texas prohibition is federal preemption. Under 49 U.S.C. § 30103(b), once a federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, states may not impose a standard covering the same aspect of vehicle performance unless it is identical to the federal standard.[49 U.S.C. § 30103(b)]
As of June 2026, no FMVSS covering impaired driving prevention technology exists. NHTSA has published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking but has issued no final rule. Federal preemption under § 30103(b) only applies when a standard is “in effect.” Right now, there is no operative federal standard that preempts Texas law on this subject. Texas can act today — with maximum legal effect — before NHTSA finalizes any rule.[49 U.S.C. § 30103(b); NHTSA Report to Congress, Feb. 2026]
If NHTSA eventually issues a final FMVSS requiring this technology, express preemption under § 30103(b) and implied conflict preemption under the Supremacy Clause would threaten a direct prohibition. However, the vehicle data sovereignty provisions (Sec. 547.628) address data transmission, not vehicle safety standards — a completely separate legal domain governed by data privacy law, not FMVSS preemption. The private cause of action is expressly preserved by the saving clause at 49 U.S.C. § 30103(e).[49 U.S.C. § 30103(e); Williamson v. Mazda Motor, 562 U.S. 323 (2011)]
Constitutional Grounds for a Texas Challenge
Passive continuous monitoring of biometrics and behavior implicates the Fourth Amendment (warrant requirement per Carpenter v. United States, 2018). Forced immobilization without due process implicates the Fifth Amendment. Texas Constitution Article I, Section 9 provides broader surveillance protections than the federal Fourth Amendment, and Article I, Section 19 guarantees no deprivation of liberty or property without due course of law.[Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018); Texas Constitution Art. I §§ 9, 19]
The Real Cost to HD-109
What this mandate means for Cedar Hill, Lancaster, De Soto, Glenn Heights, and our communities
House District 109 covers Cedar Hill, Lancaster, the eastern half of De Soto, Glenn Heights, Wilmer, Hutchins, Combine, a small piece of Ferris, and Seagoville — communities where vehicle ownership is not a luxury. It is essential infrastructure. People drive to work, to church, to their children’s schools, to the doctor, to the grocery store. The federal kill switch mandate threatens all of it.
When NHTSA finalizes its rule, every new vehicle sold in HD-109 will carry an additional $500 to $2,000 of hardware mandated by Washington.[House Vote Analysis, Jan. 2026] NHTSA’s own engineers estimated that a 99.9% accurate system would still generate millions of false-positive immobilizations per year across America.[NHTSA Report to Congress, Feb. 2026] Meanwhile, your vehicle’s telematics system is already streaming behavioral data about you to manufacturers and third parties — potentially including foreign adversary-linked entities — with no current Texas law stopping it.[Texas AG Connected Car Investigation, 2022]
The order of authority that governs a Texan’s daily life should run from family to community to city to state to federal government — with the federal government having the least impact on individual liberty. A federal mandate that places an always-on surveillance and control device in every citizen’s vehicle, and allows that surveillance data to flow unchecked to foreign nations, inverts that entire order. It is the most intimate form of federal overreach and foreign intrusion imaginable.
The Kill Switch Legislation
What the Texas Vehicle Freedom & Privacy Protection Act does — Sec. 547.621–627
The proposed Texas Vehicle Freedom & Privacy Protection Act for the 90th Legislature builds on the failed 89th Legislature bills (HB 2547 / SB 381) with a comprehensive, multi-layer approach. This legislation adds five critical elements absent from prior attempts:[TX HB 2547, 89th Leg.; TX SB 381, 89th Leg.]
- Registration prohibition — TxDMV and county tax assessors may not register vehicles equipped with remote vehicle disabling technology (Sec. 547.623)
- Criminal penalties — Unauthorized installation is a Class A misdemeanor; unauthorized activation is a state jail felony (Sec. 547.624)
- Civil penalty — TxDMV may assess up to $25,000 per violation against manufacturers or dealers (Sec. 547.624(b))
- Private cause of action — Any Texas vehicle owner may sue for actual damages + $10,000 minimum per incident + punitive damages + attorney’s fees (Sec. 547.625)
- Consumer disclosure + AG authority — Pre-sale written disclosure required; AG authorized to enforce the Act and bring constitutional challenges (Sec. 547.626–627)
This bill will be referred to the House Transportation Committee. No federal preemption currently applies because no final FMVSS exists. Every provision has an independent legal basis. The private cause of action is expressly preserved under 49 U.S.C. § 30103(e). The AG authority empowers Texas to take the legal fight directly to the federal government rather than leaving that burden to individual Texans.
Vehicle Data Sovereignty: Stopping Foreign & Unauthorized Domestic Data Transmission
New Sec. 547.628 — your car’s data belongs to you, not to Beijing, not to Moscow, not to any company that didn’t ask
Even without a kill switch, the modern connected vehicle is a surveillance device on wheels. Your car’s cameras, microphones, Bluetooth sensors, telematics modules, and biometric monitors collect a continuous stream of data about you: where you go, when you go, how you drive, your voice, your face, your heart rate, your passengers. Right now, under current Texas and federal law, there is no statute that prohibits that data from being transmitted to China, Russia, Iran, or any other foreign nation, and no requirement that an American company get your permission before sending it to a domestic third party.
In 2022, the Texas Attorney General launched an investigation into multiple connected car manufacturers for secretly siphoning and selling vast amounts of driver data extracted directly from vehicles.[Texas AG Connected Car Investigation, 2022] At the federal level, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security found sufficient national security risk in Chinese and Russian vehicle software and hardware to finalize a rule — effective March 17, 2025 — restricting connected vehicle supply chains. But that rule addresses what software is inside the car, not where the data goes after it leaves.[BIS Connected Vehicle Final Rule, 90 FR 5360, Jan. 2025]
What the Current Legal Gap Looks Like
The Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (TDPSA), effective July 1, 2024, covers personal data linked to an individual, including precise geolocation data and biometric data.[TDPSA, Bus. & Commerce Code Ch. 541, 2024] But the TDPSA has significant gaps for vehicle data: it does not specifically address vehicle telematics, it provides no foreign adversary restriction, it has no per-incident private cause of action (only AG enforcement), and it does not cover the continuous behavioral monitoring data stream that connected vehicles generate. The federal Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act (PADFA, 2024) prohibits data brokers from transferring personal data to foreign adversary-linked entities — but its application to automakers acting as data collectors is legally unsettled.[PADFA, 2024]
| Law / Authority | Type | Covers Kill Switch / RVDT? | Covers Foreign Data Transmission? | Covers Domestic Data Transmission w/o Consent? | Private Right of Action? | Criminal Penalties? | Key Gap / Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IIJA § 24220 P.L. 117-58 (2021) |
Federal statute | ⚠ Mandates RVDT — the problem, not the solution | ❌ No | ❌ No | ❌ No | ❌ No | This IS the threat. Creates the legal mandate Texas must counteract. No FMVSS issued yet (as of June 2026). |
| 49 U.S.C. § 30103(b) FMVSS Preemption Clause |
Federal statute | ⚠ Future risk if FMVSS issued | ❌ No — does not cover data flows | ❌ No — does not cover data flows | ✅ § 30103(e) saves state private actions | N/A | Preemption only applies when FMVSS is “in effect.” No FMVSS exists now. Data sovereignty (Sec. 547.628) is a separate legal domain — not preempted. |
| BIS Connected Vehicle Final Rule 90 FR 5360 (eff. Mar. 17, 2025) |
Federal regulation | ❌ No — covers supply chain, not disabling tech | ❌ No — covers hardware/software origin, NOT data flows | ❌ No | ❌ No | ❌ No | Prohibits import/sale of Chinese & Russian vehicle software (2027 MY) and hardware (2030 MY) only. A U.S.-branded vehicle with compliant hardware can still stream Texas driver data to Beijing freely under this rule. |
| FTC Order — GM / OnStar FTC Final Order (Jan. 14, 2026) |
Federal enforcement order | ❌ No | ❌ No — order does not restrict foreign recipients | ⚠ Partial — applies to GM/OnStar only; requires affirmative consent for data sharing with consumer reporting agencies; 5-yr ban on sharing geolocation/behavior data with credit agencies | ❌ No — FTC consent order only; no private right of action | ❌ No | Applies only to GM and OnStar. Does not bind any other automaker. Does not prohibit foreign transmission. 5-year reporting agency ban expires. Not a statute — not binding precedent. |
| Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act (PADFA) P.L. 118-50 (2024) |
Federal statute | ❌ No | ⚠ Partial — prohibits data brokers from transferring personal data to foreign adversary-linked entities (China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea) | ❌ No | ❌ No — FTC enforcement only | ❌ No | Does not cover automakers acting as direct data collectors — only “data brokers.” Does not cover Cuba, Venezuela, or non-designated foreign nations. No private right of action. Application to vehicle telematics legally unsettled. |
| Texas Data Privacy & Security Act (TDPSA) Bus. & Commerce Code Ch. 541 (eff. July 1, 2024) |
Texas statute | ❌ No | ❌ No — no foreign adversary restriction; no foreign transmission prohibition | ⚠ Partial — opt-out right for sale of personal data; requires privacy notice; covers geolocation & biometrics as “sensitive data” | ❌ No — AG enforcement only; no individual right to sue | ❌ No | No vehicle-specific provisions. Small business exemption. Opt-out model (not opt-in) for most data. No foreign transmission restriction. No per-incident statutory damages. AG is the sole enforcer. |
| Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI) Bus. & Commerce Code § 503.001 (orig. 2001; active enforcement since 2022) |
Texas statute | ❌ No | ❌ No — no foreign transmission restriction | ⚠ Partial — prohibits commercial capture of biometric identifiers (iris, fingerprint, voiceprint, hand/face geometry) without informed consent; bars disclosure to third parties | ❌ No — AG enforcement only (up to $25,000/violation) | ❌ No | Covers only “biometric identifiers” (not broader behavioral/driving data). No private right of action. Does not address vehicle telematics specifically. Vehicle behavioral data (speed, steering, braking) is not a biometric identifier under CUBI. |
| Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) Bus. & Commerce Code § 17.41 et seq. |
Texas statute | ❌ No | ❌ No | ⚠ Partial — used by TX AG to sue GM (Aug. 2024) for deceptive enrollment practices that harvested driver data; addresses deceptive consent practices, not the transmission itself | ✅ Yes — individuals can sue for actual damages ×3 (if knowing), attorney’s fees; AG can sue for civil penalties | ❌ No | Requires a predicate deceptive act — does not directly prohibit data transmission. Cannot address foreign transmission unless the foreign disclosure was part of the deceptive act. Requires individual litigation; no standing per data point. |
| Texas AG v. General Motors / OnStar Active suit, filed Aug. 2024 (DTPA) |
Texas enforcement action | ❌ No | ❌ No — suit does not allege foreign transmission | ✄ Active — alleges GM collected driving data from 1.8M TX vehicles and sold it to insurance companies without adequate consent | ❌ No (enforcement action only; no class action mechanism) | ❌ No | Enforcement action only — not a statutory prohibition. Limited to GM. No remedy for foreign recipients. Does not create binding legal standards for other automakers. Cannot prevent future violations without a permanent injunction and statutory backup. |
| TX HB 2547 / SB 381 89th Legislature (2025) — died in committee |
Texas bill (failed) | ✅ Yes — would prohibit manufacture/sale of RVDT vehicles; license revocation | ❌ No | ❌ No | ❌ No | ❌ No | Strongest TX kill switch bill to date. Died without a vote. No data sovereignty component. No criminal penalties. No private cause of action. No registration prohibition. |
| Proposed Sec. 547.621–628 Texas Vehicle Freedom & Privacy Protection Act — 90th Leg. (2027) |
Proposed Texas statute | ✅ YES — complete prohibition on manufacture, sale, registration, installation, and activation of RVDT | ✅ YES — ABSOLUTE prohibition on all foreign nations; heightened 3rd-degree felony for foreign adversaries (15 CFR 791.4) and terrorist organizations (50 U.S.C. § 1801) | ✅ YES — express opt-in required for all behavioral/biometric/identity data; “basic service data” exception; cannot condition sale on consent | ✅ YES — $10K–$50K minimum per incident + actual + punitive + fees for individuals; AG authority with $100K/violation civil penalty | ✅ YES — SJF for unauthorized activation; Class A for unauthorized installation; SJF for foreign transmission; 3rd degree felony for foreign adversary/terrorist transmission | Fills every gap above. No existing law covers this comprehensively. Data sovereignty section (547.628) is legally independent of FMVSS preemption and survives any future federal kill switch mandate. |
What Sec. 547.628 Does — The Three-Layer Protection
Layer 1 — Absolute Foreign Prohibition. No data that a vehicle detects, senses, monitors, records, or derives about the driver or any passenger may be transmitted to any foreign government, foreign person, foreign entity, or foreign nation whatsoever. This is not a foreign-adversary-only rule — it is a complete prohibition on foreign transmission of Texas driver and passenger data. Period. No exceptions for compliant nations. No exceptions for allied nations. No foreign government or entity has any business receiving data about a Texas citizen driving their personal vehicle.
Layer 2 — Heightened Penalties for Foreign Adversaries & Terrorist Organizations. The six nations defined as foreign adversaries under 15 CFR 791.4 — China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela — receive a heightened penalty tier: transmission of covered data to a foreign adversary-linked entity or to any organization or person meeting the definition of a “foreign power” under 50 U.S.C. § 1801 — which includes terrorist organizations — is a third-degree felony per incident.[15 CFR 791.4; 50 U.S.C. § 1801] The standard foreign-nation violation is a state jail felony.
Layer 3 — Opt-In for Domestic Transmission of Behavioral & Biometric Data. If any American entity (manufacturer, insurer, data broker, telematics company, or other third party) wishes to receive data that a vehicle derives about driver behavior, physical characteristics, biometrics, precise location, or personal identity, that entity must first obtain express written or electronic opt-in consent from the vehicle owner or operator. The opt-in must be separate from any general terms of service. It must clearly describe what data will be collected, who will receive it, and how it will be used. It may be revoked at any time. If the owner or operator declines or revokes consent, the vehicle may continue to transmit only basic service data — defined as data necessary for GPS navigation, emergency services, safety recall notifications, and standard over-the-air vehicle software updates — but may not transmit behavioral monitoring, biometric, or identity-linked data.
Permitted without consent: GPS navigation routing data (location sent for turn-by-turn directions), emergency SOS location data, safety recall notifications, standard OTA software/firmware updates, audio streaming from your phone (e.g., sports radio), standard hands-free calling. Prohibited without consent: Driver behavioral monitoring data (reaction times, steering patterns, speed habits), biometric data (eye tracking, heart rate, facial recognition), passenger presence or identity data, continuous precise location history stored or shared with third parties, voice recordings beyond active call sessions, vehicle sensor data linked to an identifiable individual.
Private Right of Action & AG Enforcement
Every Texas vehicle owner or passenger whose data is transmitted in violation of Sec. 547.628 has a private right of action against the responsible party. A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, statutory damages of not less than $10,000 per incident (or $50,000 per incident for foreign adversary or terrorist-linked violations), punitive damages for willful violations, and attorney’s fees. The Texas Attorney General is also empowered to enforce this section independently, seek injunctive relief, and bring civil enforcement actions on behalf of Texas residents.[Proposed Sec. 547.628; 49 U.S.C. § 30103(e)]
Why This Section Is Legally Distinct from Kill Switch Preemption
The kill switch prohibition operates in the domain of federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and is subject to potential preemption under 49 U.S.C. § 30103(b). Section 547.628 operates entirely in the domain of data privacy, data sovereignty, and consumer protection law. There is no operative federal standard governing the transmission of vehicle-collected personal data to foreign nations or to domestic third parties — none. The BIS connected vehicle rule governs supply chain origin, not data flows. The TDPSA already establishes Texas’s sovereign authority to regulate personal data about Texas residents. Section 547.628 is a direct extension of that authority into the vehicle data context, and it is not preempted by any existing or foreseeable FMVSS.[49 U.S.C. § 30103; BIS Final Rule 90 FR 5360; TDPSA Ch. 541]
Proposed Legislation — Full Bill Text
Texas Vehicle Freedom & Privacy Protection Act — H.B. No. _____, 90th Legislature — Sec. 547.621–628 (pre-filing draft, v3)
Texas Vehicle Freedom & Privacy Protection Act
Tex. Transp. Code Ch. 547, new Subchapter L (Sec. 547.621–628) — Rep. Will Campbell, HD-109 — 90th Legislature, 2027 Regular Session
By: ___________________ H.B. No. _____
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the prohibition of remote vehicle disabling technology and the protection of vehicle data privacy for Texas residents.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
ARTICLE 1. PROHIBITION OF REMOTE VEHICLE DISABLING TECHNOLOGY AND VEHICLE DATA SOVEREIGNTY
SECTION 1.01. Chapter 547, Transportation Code, is amended by adding Subchapter L to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER L. PROHIBITION OF REMOTE VEHICLE DISABLING TECHNOLOGY AND VEHICLE DATA SOVEREIGNTY
Sec. 547.621. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) “Basic service data” means data transmitted solely for the purpose of: (A) providing GPS navigation or emergency location services at the affirmative request of the vehicle operator; (B) transmitting safety recall notifications issued by the manufacturer; (C) delivering standard over-the-air vehicle software or firmware updates not related to behavioral monitoring; or (D) enabling standard hands-free calling, audio streaming, or similar owner-initiated entertainment services that do not collect or transmit data about the driver’s identity, behavior, biometrics, or precise location history to any third party.
(2) “Covered vehicle data” means any data that a motor vehicle or any system, component, or device connected to or integrated with a motor vehicle detects, senses, records, derives, generates, or transmits that is linked or reasonably linkable to: (A) the identity, location, physical characteristics, biometrics, or behavior of the driver or any passenger; or (B) the precise location history or movement patterns of the vehicle or its occupants. The term does not include basic service data.
(3) “Dealer” has the meaning assigned by Section 503.001.
(4) “Foreign adversary” means a country or non-government person identified as a foreign adversary under 15 C.F.R. Part 791, as that regulation exists on the effective date of this Act or as subsequently amended, and includes any entity owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of such a country or person.
(5) “Foreign nation” means any country other than the United States of America and includes any government, governmental agency, state-owned enterprise, instrumentality, or person acting on behalf of or under the direction of such a country.
(6) “Foreign power” has the meaning assigned by 50 U.S.C. Section 1801(a), which includes entities engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor.
(7) “Manufacturer” has the meaning assigned by Section 503.001.
(8) “Motor vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 502.001.
(9) “Remote vehicle disabling technology” means any application, device, system, or combination thereof, including software, firmware, and hardware, that, when activated or engaged by a person other than the operator or owner of the vehicle, allows that person to disable, limit, restrict, prevent, or otherwise interfere with the operation of a motor vehicle. The term does not include: (A) an ignition interlock device as defined by Article 42A.408, Code of Criminal Procedure, that is installed pursuant to a valid court order; or (B) a system used solely by the vehicle owner or lessee for theft recovery purposes with the affirmative written consent of the owner or lessee.
Sec. 547.622. PROHIBITED ACTS — REMOTE VEHICLE DISABLING TECHNOLOGY. (a) A manufacturer may not manufacture, distribute, assemble, or sell a motor vehicle for use or registration in this state that is equipped with remote vehicle disabling technology.
(b) A dealer may not sell, offer for sale, or exchange a motor vehicle in this state that is equipped with remote vehicle disabling technology.
(c) A person may not install remote vehicle disabling technology on a motor vehicle registered in this state without the affirmative written consent of the vehicle’s owner.
(d) A person may not activate, engage, or remotely use remote vehicle disabling technology to disable, limit, or restrict the operation of a motor vehicle registered or operated in this state without a valid court order specifically authorizing such action.
Sec. 547.623. VEHICLE REGISTRATION PROHIBITION. (a) A county assessor-collector may not accept for registration and the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles may not register a motor vehicle that is equipped with remote vehicle disabling technology.
(b) The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles shall adopt rules establishing procedures for verifying that a motor vehicle presented for registration or renewal of registration does not contain remote vehicle disabling technology.
Sec. 547.624. ENFORCEMENT — REMOTE VEHICLE DISABLING TECHNOLOGY. (a) A license holder under Chapter 2301, Occupations Code, who violates Section 547.622(a) or (b) is subject to the revocation or suspension of the license under Section 2301.651(a)(4), Occupations Code.
(b) The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles may assess a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each violation of Section 547.622(a) or (b) against a manufacturer or dealer.
(c) A person who installs remote vehicle disabling technology on a motor vehicle in violation of Section 547.622(c) commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) A person who activates or uses remote vehicle disabling technology in violation of Section 547.622(d) commits a state jail felony.
Sec. 547.625. CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION — REMOTE VEHICLE DISABLING TECHNOLOGY. (a) A vehicle owner or operator whose motor vehicle operation is disabled, limited, or restricted in violation of this subchapter has a private cause of action against the person who activated, installed, or engaged the remote vehicle disabling technology.
(b) A prevailing plaintiff in a suit under this section is entitled to: (1) actual damages; (2) statutory damages of not less than $10,000 for each incident; (3) punitive damages if the court finds the violation was willful or knowing; and (4) court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
Sec. 547.626. ATTORNEY GENERAL AUTHORITY. The attorney general may bring an action on behalf of the state or a Texas resident to enforce this subchapter, to challenge any federal mandate requiring remote vehicle disabling technology on constitutional grounds, or to seek injunctive relief against any person violating this subchapter.
Sec. 547.627. CONSUMER DISCLOSURE. A manufacturer or dealer that sells a motor vehicle in this state must disclose in writing to the purchaser, prior to sale: (1) whether the vehicle contains any technology capable of remotely monitoring driver behavior, transmitting driving data to a third party, or interfacing with any system designed to limit vehicle operation; and (2) the identity of each third party to which the vehicle is capable of transmitting covered vehicle data, including whether any such third party is located outside the United States. Failure to make the disclosure required by this section is a deceptive trade practice under Chapter 17, Business & Commerce Code.
Sec. 547.628. VEHICLE DATA SOVEREIGNTY — PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN TRANSMISSION AND DOMESTIC TRANSMISSION WITHOUT CONSENT.
(a) PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN TRANSMISSION. A manufacturer, dealer, telematics service provider, data aggregator, insurer, or any other person may not transmit, sell, license, share, provide access to, or otherwise disclose covered vehicle data to any foreign nation or to any person, entity, or organization acting on behalf of, under the direction of, or subject to the jurisdiction or control of a foreign nation.
(b) DOMESTIC TRANSMISSION — OPT-IN CONSENT REQUIRED. A manufacturer, dealer, telematics service provider, data aggregator, insurer, or any other person may not transmit, sell, license, share, provide access to, or otherwise disclose covered vehicle data to any domestic third party unless the vehicle owner or operator has provided express written or electronic opt-in consent that: (1) is separate and distinct from any general terms of service agreement; (2) clearly identifies the specific categories of data to be collected; (3) clearly identifies each recipient or class of recipient of the data; (4) clearly describes the purposes for which the data will be used; and (5) states that consent may be revoked at any time without penalty.
(c) EFFECT OF REFUSAL OR REVOCATION OF CONSENT. If a vehicle owner or operator does not provide or subsequently revokes consent under Subsection (b), the vehicle or any connected system may continue to transmit only basic service data. No person may condition the sale, lease, or continued operation of a motor vehicle on the owner’s or operator’s consent to the transmission of covered vehicle data beyond basic service data.
(d) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
(1) A person who knowingly transmits covered vehicle data to a foreign nation in violation of Subsection (a) commits a state jail felony for each incident of transmission.
(2) A person who knowingly transmits covered vehicle data to a foreign adversary, or to a foreign power as defined by 50 U.S.C. Section 1801(a) including any organization engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor, commits a felony of the third degree for each incident of transmission.
(3) A person who knowingly transmits covered vehicle data to a domestic third party without required opt-in consent in violation of Subsection (b) commits a Class A misdemeanor for each incident of transmission.
(e) CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION. A vehicle owner or operator whose covered vehicle data is transmitted in violation of this section has a private cause of action against the person who transmitted the data. A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to: (1) actual damages; (2) statutory damages of not less than $10,000 for each incident of unauthorized domestic transmission; (3) statutory damages of not less than $50,000 for each incident of transmission to a foreign adversary or foreign power; (4) punitive damages if the court finds the violation was willful or knowing; and (5) court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
(f) ATTORNEY GENERAL ENFORCEMENT. The attorney general may bring a civil action to enforce this section, seek injunctive relief, recover civil penalties of not more than $100,000 per violation, and bring such constitutional challenges as the attorney general determines appropriate against any federal requirement that conflicts with this section.
(g) CONSTRUCTION. This section shall be construed independently of Sections 547.622 through 547.627. A finding that any portion of those sections is preempted by federal law does not affect the validity or enforceability of this section.
ARTICLE 2. TRANSITION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
SECTION 2.01. TRANSITION. The change in law made by this Act applies only to a motor vehicle manufactured, sold, offered for sale, or registered in this state on or after the effective date of this Act. A dealer or manufacturer holding inventory of motor vehicles equipped with remote vehicle disabling technology on the effective date of this Act must disable or remove such technology before selling or registering any such vehicle in this state. The state provides dealers and manufacturers a 180-day compliance window from the effective date to comply with the requirements of this Act.
SECTION 2.02. This Act takes effect September 1, 2027.
Supplemental Research Data
Detailed supporting data organized by topic area — expand each tab for deeper analysis
Statutory requirements, rulemaking status, and congressional action as of June 2026
| Item | Requirement / Status | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Law signed | November 15, 2021 | IIJA P.L. 117-58 |
| Original rulemaking deadline | November 15, 2024 (missed) | IIJA § 24220(c) |
| Technology available? | No — NHTSA confirmed no compliant system | NHTSA, Feb. 2026 |
| Hardware cost per vehicle | $500–$2,000 estimated | House Vote Analysis, Jan. 2026 |
| House defund vote (Massie) | Rejected 164–268, Jan. 22, 2026 | House Vote Record |
| Federal repeal (McCaul H.R. 6563) | Filed; not enacted as of June 2026 | McCaul Press Release, 2024 |
| Current FMVSS status | No final rule — ANPRM only | NHTSA, Feb. 2026 |
How Texas law holds up under each possible federal rulemaking scenario
| Scenario | Preemption Risk | Survives | At Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Now: No FMVSS | None | All provisions | None |
| Future: FMVSS requires RVDT | High for prohibition | Sec. 547.627 disclosure; Sec. 547.628 data sovereignty (entirely separate legal domain); Sec. 547.625 private right of action (§ 30103(e) saving clause) | Secs. 547.622–623 prohibition and registration ban |
| Future: Federal data transmission law enacted | Potential conflict preemption if federal law expressly preempts state law | Provisions consistent with federal law; AG authority to challenge | Provisions in direct conflict with any preemptive federal standard |
| Future: Federal mandate struck down | None | All provisions fully operative | None |
The six federally designated foreign adversaries and the FISA terrorist definition referenced in Sec. 547.628. See the full current-law coverage matrix in Section 7 above.
| Nation / Entity | Federal Designation | Key Entities Covered | Penalty Tier Under Sec. 547.628 |
|---|---|---|---|
| People’s Republic of China | 15 CFR 791.4(a)(1) | Includes Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and all entities owned/controlled by/subject to China | Felony of the 3rd Degree per incident |
| Russian Federation | 15 CFR 791.4(a)(2) | All entities owned/controlled by Russia | Felony of the 3rd Degree per incident |
| Islamic Republic of Iran | 15 CFR 791.4(a)(3) | All entities owned/controlled by Iran | Felony of the 3rd Degree per incident |
| Democratic People’s Republic of Korea | 15 CFR 791.4(a)(4) | All entities owned/controlled by North Korea | Felony of the 3rd Degree per incident |
| Republic of Cuba | 15 CFR 791.4(a)(5) | All entities owned/controlled by Cuba | Felony of the 3rd Degree per incident |
| Venezuela (Maduro regime) | 15 CFR 791.4(a)(6) | Government of Venezuela & regime-controlled entities | Felony of the 3rd Degree per incident |
| Any foreign power per 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a) | FISA definition — includes terrorist organizations | Any group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor | Felony of the 3rd Degree per incident |
| All other foreign nations | N/A (not designated adversaries) | Any government, entity, or person outside the U.S. not otherwise listed | State Jail Felony per incident |
Committee pathway, companion bill considerations, and strategic notes for the 90th Legislature
Every provision compared side-by-side, including the new data sovereignty section
| Provision | HB 2547 / SB 381 (89th) | HB 1074 (89th) | Proposed 90th v2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prohibit manufacture/sale of RVDT vehicles | ✅ Yes | Partial | ✅ Sec. 547.622(a)(b) |
| Registration prohibition via TxDMV | ❌ No | ✅ Yes | ✅ Sec. 547.623 |
| License revocation for dealers/manufacturers | ✅ Yes | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.624(a) |
| Civil penalty ($25,000/violation) | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.624(b) |
| Criminal — unauthorized installation (Class A) | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.624(c) |
| Criminal — unauthorized activation (SJF) | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.624(d) |
| Private cause of action ($10K min + punitive) | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.625 |
| AG enforcement + constitutional challenge authority | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.626 |
| Consumer disclosure (DTPA remedy) | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.627 |
| Absolute prohibition on foreign data transmission | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.628(a) — ALL foreign nations |
| Heightened penalty for foreign adversary / terrorist transmission (3rd degree felony) | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.628(d)(2) |
| Opt-in required for domestic behavioral/biometric data transmission | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.628(b) |
| Basic service data exception (GPS, emergency, OTA) | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.621(1) + 547.628(c) |
| No conditioning sale on data consent | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.628(c) |
| Data sovereignty private right of action ($10K/$50K min) | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.628(e) |
| AG $100K civil penalty authority for data violations | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.628(f) |
| Severability clause (data sovereignty independent) | ❌ No | ❌ No | ✅ Sec. 547.628(g) |
| Ignition interlock exception | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes | ✅ Sec. 547.621(9)(A) |
| Theft recovery exception (owner consent) | ❌ Not explicit | ❌ Not explicit | ✅ Sec. 547.621(9)(B) |
References
Sources organized by article section. APA 7th Edition format. All sources are primary governmental records, official legal texts, or legislative documents. No internal working documents cited.
Federal Kill Switch Law — Sections 1 & 2
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Pub. L. No. 117-58, § 24220, 135 Stat. 429 (2021). congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text
Primary federal statutory authority for the kill switch mandate. Section 24220 is titled “Advanced Impaired Driving Technology.” All descriptions of the mandate’s scope, technology definition, and NHTSA rulemaking obligation are drawn from this source.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2026, February). Report to Congress: Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention Technology. U.S. DOT. nhtsa.gov — Report to Congress (Feb. 2026)
NHTSA’s mandatory annual report to Congress confirming no compliant technology exists, false positives would affect millions annually, and hardware costs are $500–$2,000 per vehicle. Most current official government position on the mandate’s status.
U.S. House of Representatives. (2026, January 22). Roll Call Vote on Massie Amendment to Defund NHTSA Kill Switch Rulemaking [Vote Record 164–268]. clerk.house.gov/Votes
Official House roll call confirming Section 24220 remains in force after a 164–268 vote rejected Rep. Thomas Massie’s defund amendment.
McCaul, M. (2024, January 17). McCaul Sponsors Bill to Repeal Democrats’ Kill Switch in Cars Mandate [Press Release]. U.S. House of Representatives. mccaul.house.gov
Official congressional press release on H.R. 6563, the No Kill Switches in Cars Act. As of June 2026, the repeal bill has not become law.
Federal Preemption & Constitutional Law — Section 4
49 U.S.C. § 30103(b) — National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Federal Preemption Clause. uscode.house.gov — 49 U.S.C. Ch. 301
Primary federal preemption statute. Preemption applies only when an FMVSS is “in effect.” No FMVSS for impaired driving prevention technology exists as of June 2026. Foundational authority for Texas’s current right to act.
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). supreme.justia.com
Seminal FMVSS preemption case. Cited for the proposition that state laws conflicting with an operative FMVSS are subject to both express and implied preemption.
Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 562 U.S. 323 (2011). law.cornell.edu
Limits Geier. Compliance with an FMVSS does not automatically preempt all state law, grounding the analysis that consumer disclosure and data sovereignty provisions address different legal domains than the federal mandate.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). supremecourt.gov
Landmark Fourth Amendment digital privacy case. Government access to continuous cell-site location data requires a warrant. Cited for the constitutional hook against continuous passive vehicle monitoring and behavioral data collection.
Texas Legislative History — Section 3
Texas Legislature. (2025). H.B. 2547, 89th Legislature, Regular Session. Texas Legislature Online. capitol.texas.gov — HB 2547 Text
Most recent Texas House kill switch bill. Provides baseline language for the proposed 90th Legislature legislation. Died in State Affairs Committee without a vote.
Texas Legislature. (2025). S.B. 381, 89th Legislature, Regular Session. FastDemocracy. fastdemocracy.com — SB 381 Status
Senate companion to HB 2547 by Sen. Mayes Middleton. Died without a committee vote.
Texas Legislature. (2025). H.B. 1074, 89th Legislature — Right to Drive Act. texaslobby.org — HB 1074 Summary
Alternative kill switch bill by Rep. Schatzline. Registration prohibition approach incorporated into the 90th Legislature proposed legislation.
Republican Party of Texas. (2025). Resolution to Oppose Kill Switches in Vehicles. Texas GOP. texasgop.org — RPT Resolution
Official RPT resolution demanding prohibition of government-mandated vehicle kill switches. Establishes this as RPT Legislative Priority #8 under “Ending Federal Overreach.”
Vehicle Data Sovereignty — Section 7 & Sec. 547.628
15 C.F.R. Part 791 — Foreign Adversary Designations (Commerce Dept.). ecfr.gov — 15 CFR Part 791
Authoritative federal list of designated foreign adversaries: China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela under Maduro. This is the regulatory definition cross-referenced in the definition of “foreign adversary” in Sec. 547.621(4) to ensure alignment with federal national security law without requiring Texas to maintain its own list.
50 U.S.C. § 1801(a) — Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Definition of “Foreign Power.” uscode.house.gov — 50 U.S.C. § 1801
Defines “foreign power” to include entities engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor. Cross-referenced in Sec. 547.621(6) and Sec. 547.628(d)(2) to ensure heightened criminal and civil penalties apply to data transmission that benefits terrorist organizations, not just named foreign adversary nations.
Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. (2025, January 13). Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain: Connected Vehicles [Final Rule]. 90 Fed. Reg. 5360. federalregister.gov — 90 FR 5360
BIS final rule effective March 17, 2025, prohibiting imports and sales of connected vehicle software (2027 model year) and hardware (2030) from China and Russia. Cited in Section 7 to establish what federal law already covers (supply chain origin) and what it does not cover (ongoing data transmission from any brand of vehicle to foreign entities). There is no federal preemption conflict because this rule does not address data flows.
Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (TDPSA), Tex. Bus. & Commerce Code Ch. 541 (eff. July 1, 2024). capitol.texas.gov — HB 4, 88th Leg. (TDPSA enrolled)
Texas’s primary data privacy law. Covers personal data linked to individuals, including precise geolocation and biometric data. Cited in Section 7 for the existing framework on which Sec. 547.628 builds, and for the gaps it leaves in vehicle telematics data protection: no foreign adversary restriction, no per-incident private right of action, no vehicle-specific provisions.
Texas Attorney General. (2022, November 23). Texas AG Launches Connected Cars Investigation. The Record. therecord.media — TX AG Connected Car Probe
Documentation of the Texas AG investigation into connected car manufacturers for secretly siphoning and selling driver data. Establishes that the vehicle data transmission problem is not theoretical — it is an active enforcement matter in Texas that underscores the need for explicit statutory prohibition in Sec. 547.628.
Lee, M. (2025, December 16). Lee Bill Protects Car Owners from Data Harvesting [Press Release]. U.S. Senate. lee.senate.gov
Press release on Sen. Mike Lee’s Auto Data Privacy and Autonomy Act (House version by Rep. Burlison), which would prohibit vehicle data sales without owner consent and bar data sharing with adversarial nations. Not enacted as of June 2026. Cited in Section 7 to establish that federal action on this issue is being attempted but has not succeeded, reinforcing the need for Texas state action.